Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/407/2012

S.Anandaprabhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. & another - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.Mannarsamy

24 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :  THIRU.J.JAYARAM                                   PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                      TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                               MEMBER

                                                                                                F.A.NO.407/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.326/2006, dated 15.02.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South)

DATED THIS THE 24^th DAY OF APRIL 2015

A.Anandaprabhu,

No.1146, Velacherri Road,

Saidapet, Little Mount,                                         Appellant / Complainant

Chennai 600 015.

                              Vs

1. The Regional Manager,

    New India Assurance Company Ltd,

    Regional Office,

    770-A, Anna Salai,

    Chennai 600 002.

2. The Branch Manager,

    New India Assurance Company Ltd,                  Respondents / Opp.parties

    Saidapet Branch Office,

    375, Anna Salai,

    Chennai 600 015.

          This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 19.03.2015 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order:

Counsel for Appellant/ Complainant     :    M/s.V.S.Mannarsamy          

Counsel for Respondents/ Opposite parties :  M/s.R.Elango

  

J.JAYARAM,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.       The appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) in CC.No.326/2006, dated 15.02.2011 dismissing the complaint.

2.       The case of the complainant is that he had insured his car Maruthi Omni with the opposite parties and the car met with the accident on 31.07.2004 and his claim was rejected by the opposite parties without any valid reasons which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint.

3.       According to the opposite parties, the claim was rejected since the insured vehicle was running on gas fuel without informing the opposite parties and the concerned authorities, illegally and unauthorisedly and hence there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in rejecting the claim.

3.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint.

4.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant has preferred this appeal.

5.       It is pertinent to note that, the claim was rejected by the opposite parties holding that the vehicle was fitted with LPG gas kit, and it has been not endorsed in the RC book and further at the time of inception of the policy it was not declared that the vehicle was fitted with LPG gas kit, which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and the claim has been repudiated under Ex.A6 letter.

6.       It is contended by the complainant that the vehicle was running on petrol fuel and not using gas fuel.  Per contra, it is contended by the opposite parties that the vehicle was run using gas fuel fitted with LPG gas kit as noticed by the surveyor of the opposite parties.  Admittedly there is no endorsement in the RC that the gas kit was fitted in the vehicle.

7.       It is contended by the complainant that he was waiting for approval of gas tank to get endorsement in the RC and to inform the insurance company,  but the opposite parties’ surveyor who inspected the vehicle noticed the LPG gas kit lining without gas tank and wrongly concluded that the vehicle was running using LPG gas kit.  It is admitted by the complainant that in Ex.A5 letter that the LPG gas kit was fixed for Rs.7000/- but he gave up the idea of using gas fuel after installing the kit.  Therefore it is clear that the car was fitted with LPG gas kit.  So we find that the vehicle was fitted with LPG gas kit which is in violation of the policy conditions and the contention of the complainant in this regard is untenable.  Therefore we hold that the claim has been repudiated by the opposite parties for valid reasons and therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.       The District Forum has dismissed the complaint for valid reasons and there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the finding and the decision of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.  There is no merit in the appeal.

9.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.  There is no order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIAYAVATHI                                                                 J.JAYARAM

      MEMBER                                                           PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

INDEX; YES / NO

VL/D;/PJM/INSURANCE